White 1994

Methods	Year: 1994 Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA (University Hospital) Team/ward?: ward Timing: stepdown from acute wards Trial method: randomised trial
Participants	Number (total): 40 Mean age: 76.5 years Male:female proportion: 37% Inclusion criteria: ≥ 65 years of age; medically stable; "potential for making improvement in physical, functional or psychological function"; complicated discharge or awaiting placement. Terminal patients accepted Exclusion criteria: not explicitly stated
Interventions	Team members: senior geriatrician, geriatric nurse specialist, social worker, dietician, pharmacist, physiotherapist, occupational therapist, speech and language therapist Team organisation: admission to a 6‐bedded stepdown ward, weekly multi‐disciplinary meetings, full comprehensive assessment, therapy and discharge planning, review of medications and appropriate limits on investigations Control: usual care group reviewed by senior nurse and geriatrician, recommendations made to the usual care team
Outcomes	Death Nursing home admission Functional status 30‐Day re‐admission and costs Trial conclusions: CGA is cost‐effective and improves patient outcomes without increasing length of stay
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Random numbers table
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	insufficient details of allocation concealment
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)	High risk	Blinding of participants and personnel not possible.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) for objective outcome measures	Low risk	Outcome measures (e.g. living at home) unlikely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) for subjective outcome measures	Unclear risk	Few details of outcome assessors given
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient reporting of attritions/exclusions
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No a priori documentation found to judge this item
Other bias	Low risk	Little evidence of contamination of control group